One of the nation's leading public law schools, the Moritz College of Law strives to make a difference in the world through excellence in teaching, meaningful scholarship, and advancement of the legal profession.

It's the best of all worlds for students at the Moritz College of Law. Classes are small and intimate. Yet, they can enjoy the facilities, resources, and entertainment only a world-class university can offer.

There is something for everyone in Columbus, Ohio. There are more than 50 student groups at the law school alone, culturally enriching activities on campus year-round, and a thriving city to explore a few blocks from Drinko Hall.

Our alumni network is hard at work from coast to coast and beyond U.S. borders. Stay connected with classmates and the College through campus events, alumni gatherings, and many opportunities to mentor today's law students.

The Career Services Office is a hub for students, alumni, and employers alike. Whether it's a student looking for summer job opportunities or leading legal employers in search of highly qualified candidates, our staff is here to help.

Frank v. Walker

Whether Wisconsin voter ID legislation is unconstitutional as applied to certain classes of eligible Wisconsin voters; more specifically, whether the legislation unduly burdens the fundamental right to vote under the Equal Protection Clause, violates the Twenty-Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments as an unconstitutional poll tax, and violates the Equal Proection Clause in arbitrarily refusing to accept certain identification documents.

Perez v. Texas

Whether Texas' redistricting plan violates the Constitution because it does not make a good faith effort to maintain population equality and treats inmates as residents of the counties in which they are incarcerated.

Latest Status:

District Court adopted interim redistricting plan on 11/26/11. U.S. Supreme Court stayed District Court's order pending oral argument scheduled 1/9/11. Election Scheduling Order filed 3/19/12. Interim plan for 2012 Elections entered 9/7/12. Stay denied by Supreme Court 10/3/12. Order granting motion to dismiss defendants Strauss and Dewhurst filed 11/27/13. Defendants' Motion to Modify Legislative Privilege Order filed 12/6/13. Order denying Motion to Modify Legislative Privilege Order filed 1/8/14. Plaintiffs' Sixth Amended Complaint filed 2/25/14. Defendants' Answer filed 2/28/14. Defendants' Motion for Sanctions filed 4/14/14. United States' Motion to Compel the Production of Legislative Documents filed 4/16/14. Notice of Withdrawal of Motion for Sanctions filed 4/16/14. Order granting in part, denying in part Motion to Compel filed 5/6/14. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed 5/14/14. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed 5/14/14. Order denying Motion for Reconsideration filed 5/20/14. Defendants' Second Motion for Sanctions against LULAC filed 5/21/14. Defendants' Motion for Protective filed 5/23/14. Quesada Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery filed 5/27/14. Order granting Motion for Protective Order filed 5/20/14. Task Force and MALC's Motion for Protective Order filed 5/30/14. Order granting Motion to Compel Testimony filed 6/2/14. Order granting in part and denying in part Motion to Compel filed 6/5/14. Order granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss filed 6/17/14. Order denying Motion for Reconsideration filed 6/18/14. Order granting United States' Motion for Judicial Notice in part filed 6/20/14. United States' Motion to Compel the Production of Documents filed 6/23/14. Order that Summary Judgment granted for 15th amendment claims filed 6/23/14. Order granting in part and denying in part Motion to Compel filed 7/914. Order granting in part and denying in party Motion to Exclude filed 7/9/14. Order granting in part and denying in part Motion to Compel filed 7/11/14. Defendants' Motion for Judicial Notice filed 7/19/14. Oral Order withdrawing Motion for Discovery, granting Motion to file Sealed Document, and granting Motion for Judicial filed 7/19/14. NAACP's Trial Brief, Defendant's Trial Brief, MALC's Trial Brief, United States' Trial Brief, and Task Force's Trial Brief filed 7/25/14. Perez Plaintiff's Post Trial Brief filed 10/21/14.

Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama

Whether Alabama’s effort to redraw the lines of each majority-black district to have the same black population as it would have using 2010 census data as applied to the former district lines, when combined with the state's new goal of significantly reducing population deviation among districts, amounted to an unconstitutional racial quota and racial gerrymandering that is subject to strict scrutiny and that was not justified by the putative interest of complying with the non-retrogression aspect of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act; and whether these plaintiffs have standing to bring such a constitutional claim.

Kobach v. EAC

Did the EAC's failure to modify the State-specific instructions on the Federal Form to include a voter citizenship qualification constitute an agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 706(1)?

Issue 2:

Did the EAC's failure to modify the Federal Form infringe upon State sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

Issue 3:

Did the EAC's failure to modify the Federal Form constitute an agency action that was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise made in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 706(2)?

Issue 4:

Did the EAC's failure to modify the Federal Form constitute an agency action that was in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, limitation, or short of statutory right under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 706(2)?

Issue 5:

Did the EAC's failure to modify the Federal Form force the Plaintiff's to choose between two "unconstitutionally coercive" regulations violating the Tenth Amendment and the Seventeenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

Issue 1: Does House Bill 589 deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 42 U.S.C. §1793?

Issue 2: Was House Bill 589 enacted and enforced with the purpose of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 42 U.S.C. §1793, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Fifteenth Amendment?

Latest Status:

Complaint filed 9/30/13. U.S.'s motion to consolidate cases filed 11/27/13. Defendant's answer filed 12/2/13. Judicial Watch, Inc.'s motion to intervene filed 12/10/13. Case consolidated for discovery purposes with League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. Howard and North Carolina NAACP v. McCrory 12/13/13. Motion to Quash Subpoenas to State Legislators filed 1/20/14. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents filed 1/24/14. Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order filed 2/17/14. Order that Motion to Quash and Motion to Compel granted in part, denied in part filed on 3/27/14. Legislative Movants' Objection to March 27th Order filed 4/2/14. Motion to Stay March 27th Order filed 4/2/14. Order granting motion to stay filed 4/2/14. United States' and Plaintiffs' Opposition to Objection as to Order on Legislative Privilege filed 4/14/14. Order denying motion to consolidate cases filed on 4/22/14. Order that Legislators' Pending Objection are overruled in part, sustained in part filed on 5/15/14. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed 5/19/14. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel filed 6/25/14. Order granting Motion to Expedite and Motion to Compel filed 6/26/14. Plaintiffs' Various Motions to Strike filed 6/30/14. Order denying Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed 8/8/14. Notice of Appeal filed 8/18/14. Discovery due 3/23/15.

1. Does the reduction in early voting days, loss of same-day registration, and elimination of out of precinct provisional voting opportunities violate the Fourteenth Amendment?

2. Did the Generally Assembly have a discriminatory purpose, which would violate the Fourteenth Amendment, in passing H.B. 589?

3. Do the limits on early voting days, same day registration, and out of precinct provisional voting violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 1973)?

4. If the Court finds discrimination against African Americans, should North Carolina be covered under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act?

Latest Status:

Complaint filed 8/12/13. Answer filed 10/21/13. Motion to Intervene filed 11/25/13. U.S.'s motion to consolidate filed 11/26/13. Case consolidated for discovery purposes with North Carolina NAACP v. McCrory and U.S. v. North Carolina 12/13/13. Motion to Quash Subpoenas to State Legislators filed 1/20/14. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents filed 1/24/14. Intervenor Complaint against the State filed 1/28/14. Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order filed 2/17/14. Defendants' Answer to Intervenor Complaint filed 2/18/14. Order that Motion to Quash and Motion to Compel granted in part, denied in part filed on 3/27/14. Legislative Movants' Objection to March 27th Order filed 4/2/14. Motion to Stay March 27th Order filed 4/2/14. Order granting motion to stay filed 4/2/14. United States' and Plaintiffs' Opposition to Objection as to Order on Legislative Privilege filed 4/14/14. Order that Legislators' Pending Objections are overruled in part, sustained in part filed 5/15/14. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed 5/19/14. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel filed 6/25/14. Order granting Motion to Expedite and Motion to Compel filed 6/26/14. Plaintiffs' Various Motions to Strike filed 6/30/14. Order denying Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed 8/8/14. Order reversing in part and affirming in part District Decision filed 10/1/14. Appellee's Motion to Recall Mandate filed 10/1/14. Order Denying Motion to Recall Mandate filed 10/2/14. Emergency Application for Stay of Fourth Circuit Mandate filed in U.S. Supreme Court 10/2/14. Response to Emergency Application filed 10/5/14. SCOTUS order granting stay filed 10/8/14. Discovery due 3/23/15.

Disclosure: EL@M Senior Fellow Daniel Tokaji is an amicus curiae supporting Respondents in this case. No EL@M member who participates in any lawsuit covered on the EL@M website is involved in generating the website's information or analysis on that lawsuit.

NEOCH v. Husted

Original Issues: (1) Whether Ohio's voter ID laws are unconstitutional as "confusing, vague, and impossible to apply" in violation of the right to vote; whether the laws are unconstitutional because they apply only to in-person voters and not to absentee voters; whether they are unconstitutional because they may bar voters who do not have required identification from voting on Election Day; whether they are unconstitutional because only some forms of ID must have current address; whether they are unconstitutional as a poll tax. (2) Whether Ohio's provisional-ballot laws are unconstitutionally vague and therefore violate Equal Protection and Due Process.

Current Issue: Whether an April 2010 Consent Decree requiring that provisional ballots improperly voted as a result of poll worker error still be counted is valid under Ohio law.

1. To challenge a speech-suppressive law, must a party whose speech is arguably proscribed prove that authorities would certainly and successfully prosecute or should the court presume that a credible threat of prosecution exists absent desuetude or a firm commitment by prosecutors not to enforce the law?

2. Whether state laws proscribing “false” political speech are subject to pre-enforcement First Amendment review so long as the speaker maintains that the speech is true, even if others who enforce the law manifestly disagree.

Banfield v. Cortes

Whether Pennsylvania’s use of DREs (direct recording electronic voting machines) violates Pennsylvania or federal law; whether the Secretary of the Commonwealth is required to re-examine the electronic voting system at request of electors.

Harris v. Brown

In the voting on Oregon's ballot measure concerning the labeling of genetically-modified food, was the Oregon Secretary of State required by Oregon law to count certain ballots whose signatures did not match signatures on file with election offices?

Latest Status:

Complaint filed 12/08/14. Memorandum in support of motion for temporary restraining order filed 12/08/14. TRO denied 12/10/14. Plaintiffs reported to have conceded 12/11/14.

United States v. Texas

Does SB 14 violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973 by denying minority voters the right to vote?

Latest Status:

Complaint filed 8/22/13.

Disclaimer

Election Law at Moritz is nonpartisan and does not endorse, support, or oppose any candidate, campaign, or party. Opinions expressed by individuals associated with Election Law at Moritz, either on this web site or in connection with conferences or other activities undertaken by the program, represent solely the views of the individuals offering the opinions and not the program itself. Election Law at Moritz institutionally does not represent any clients or participate in any litigation. Individuals affiliated with the program may in their own personal capacity participate in campaign or election activity, or engage in pro bono representation of clients other than partisan candidates or organizations.

The Ohio State University | Michael E. Moritz College of Law
55 West 12th Avenue | Columbus, OH 43210-1391 | (614) 292-2631
If you have trouble accessing this page or need to request an alternate format, please email the Moritz Law Webmaster
PDF files in this site require Adobe Reader to view (link opens in NEW window)